Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 06/11/2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 10, the limitation “liquid fuel injection means” has been interpreted as being “an atomizer assembly with a film applicator surface” as described in applicant's specification in paragraph 22.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “means of a transition” has been interpreted as being “a curvature positioned within the first air duct” as described in applicant's specification in paragraph 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 2, 7-10, 12 and 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 7, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14 and 15 depend from Claim 12 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cederwall et al. (US 5,218,824).
In regard to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 4, Cederwall discloses an injector assembly for an engine, in particular of an aircraft, for introducing a gaseous fuel (via gas duct 370) and a liquid fuel (via liquid fuel duct 392), and also air (via air duct 184 or 132), into a combustion chamber (similar to the combustion cham3ber 40 in figure 2), having an injector shaft (vertical portion 72 of the injector assembly shown in figure 4) and an injector main body (horizontal portion of the injector assembly shown in figure 4) oriented along an injector longitudinal axis 192, wherein the injector main body comprises:
a first gas duct 370, which is arranged centrally on the injector longitudinal axis and has a downstream outlet opening (116 or 168), for introducing a gas flow,
at least one air duct (184 or 132) arranged in radially outwardly encircling fashion around the first gas duct 370, as second gas duct (air duct 184), and
a liquid fuel injection means 402, which is arranged radially outwardly around the first gas duct 370, for introducing the liquid fuel into the combustion chamber, characterized in that
the first gas duct 370 is designed exclusively to introduce the gaseous fuel into the combustion chamber.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Cederwall discloses wherein a gas fuel supply line 172 for conducting the gaseous fuel, and a liquid fuel supply line 394 for conducting the liquid fuel, to the injector main body are present in the injector shaft 72, wherein, in particular at least at the transition to the injector main body, the gas fuel supply line is arranged on an air inflow side (the gas duct 370 is surrounded by the air duct 184) and the liquid fuel supply line is arranged on an air outflow side of the injector shaft (the liquid fuel duct 392 surrounds the air duct 184).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Cederwall discloses wherein the at least one air duct 184, as first air duct, is arranged at least partially in radially directly encircling fashion around the first gas duct 370 and has an upstream inlet opening (inlet opening 184 on the plate 96) and a downstream outlet opening (outlet opening discharging into element 182).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Cederwall discloses wherein the upstream inlet opening is arranged centrally on the injector longitudinal axis and/or at the upstream end of the injector main body (inlet opening 184 on the plate 96).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Cederwall discloses wherein at least one liquid fuel duct 392 with a downstream liquid fuel injection means 402 is present downstream of the liquid fuel supply line 394 within the injector main body, wherein the at least one liquid fuel duct 392 is arranged directly radially around the first air duct 370 and wherein the liquid fuel injection means 402 is in particular assigned an atomizer assembly with a film applicator surface (ports 402).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Cederwall discloses wherein the liquid fuel duct 392 opens out into the first air duct 132 by means of the liquid fuel injection means 402, wherein in particular the film applicator surface is designed to be able to be flowed over by an air flow flowing through the first air duct 132.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Cederwall discloses herein a second air duct 132, in particular with a swirl generator 102, is arranged in radially outwardly encircling fashion around the liquid fuel duct 392.
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Cederwall discloses an apparatus/*aircraft (Preamble; apparatus shown in figure 1) having an injector assembly (injector assembly shown in figure 4) according to one of the preceding claims, and having a fuel periphery designed for the operation of the apparatus/*aircraft with a gaseous fuel (via gas fuel duct 370) and with a liquid fuel (via liquid fuel duct 392).
In Claim 15, the recitation “designed for an aircraft” is read as intended use by the examiner and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 8, 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights